Muhammed v R

For section 58(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000, information must, by its nature, be designed to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing terrorism. It need not be useful only to terrorists, and its maker need not have intended terrorist use. Everyday material used by the public generally does not fall within the provision merely because a terrorist could use it.

Extrinsic evidence may explain coded or apparently innocuous material, but cannot convert ordinary information into terrorist-useful information. Where a document is not in everyday public use and a jury could properly find it likely to assist terrorism, the issue is for the jury, subject to mens rea and an objectively reasonable excuse.

Sultan Muhammed was convicted at the Crown Court at Blackfriars, before HHJ Pontius, of offences under sections 57(1) and 58(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000. This appeal concerned only his conviction on count 8 under section 58(1)(a), for making a record in a document entitled Draft Ideas.

The document gave advice about communications, concealment and avoiding detection. The appellant contended that much of it was ordinary information, unconnected with preparing or committing an act of terrorism. He appealed with leave of the Full Court against the conviction and, if unsuccessful, against the concurrent four-year sentence. An earlier appeal had set the sentences on counts 5 to 7 at eight years concurrently: [2009] EWCA Crim 2653.

1. Disposition. The court dismissed the appeal against conviction. It allowed the sentence appeal on count 8, holding that four years' imprisonment was manifestly excessive and substituting two years' imprisonment.
2. Section 58(1). Following R v G and R v J [2009] UKHL 13, the statutory question concerns the nature of the information. It must be designed, by its nature, to give practical assistance to a person committing or preparing terrorism. It need not be useful exclusively to terrorists, and the author need not have created it for a terrorist purpose. The court rejected an artificial distinction between stages of preparation and rejected the contention that material useful to other criminals necessarily fell outside the section.
3. Ordinary information and extrinsic evidence. Published timetables, maps and similar everyday material do not become section 58 information merely because a terrorist could use them. Extrinsic evidence can explain a document's significance, including coded or disguised material, but cannot transform ordinary material into information within the section. The substantial evidence relating to the appellant's other terrorist activity was therefore largely irrelevant to whether Draft Ideas itself satisfied section 58(1).
4. Application. Draft Ideas was not information in everyday public use. Its advice on covert communications and avoiding surveillance could properly be found by a jury to be useful to a person preparing terrorism. The statutory issue was therefore properly left to the jury. The court also confirmed that a reasonable excuse under section 58(3) must be objectively reasonable; a non-terrorist but criminal purpose is not enough.
5. Sentence. Although the document had been created with terrorism in mind, much of it contained well-known information. A two-year term after trial was the appropriate sentence for count 8 alone.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against the count 8 conviction was dismissed. The sentence appeal on that count was allowed and the four-year sentence was reduced to two years' imprisonment.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): An earlier appeal against sentence on counts 5 to 7 resulted in concurrent eight-year sentences: [2009] EWCA Crim 2653.
• Crown Court at Blackfriars: On 18 August 2008, HHJ Pontius convicted the appellant of the section 57 offences and of the section 58(1) count considered in this appeal.